* Dave Trembley is going to be gone and Jim Riggleman may very well be too;

* Ken Macha is probably safe for now;

* No matter how much the Wilpons talk about Jerry Manuel being safe, Bobby Valentine is being considered in Queens;

* Ed Wade needs to hire someone to clean up the mess, and based on the names floated — everyone from retreads like Jim Fregosi to newbies like Jeff Bagwell — he hasn’t yet figured out what he’s going to do.

Take all of this with a grain of salt, however, because based on what Edes says about Bobby Cox and the Braves, he may not be as plugged in as he would have you believe.

Citing “a major league source,” Edes claims in the piece that Cox and Braves’ GM had a big falling out last spring over the way John Smoltz’ situation was handled and that the poor relationship between the men could very well mean that Cox won’t be back in 2010. On the surface that sounds plausible, but according to both Cox himself and Mark Bradley at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the report is bunk. Cox says “everything is fine” and that Wren has been “outstanding.” Wren is a little more reserved, but calls Edes’ report “inaccurate.”

I’m guessing Cox and Wren aren’t big pals like Cox and Schuerholz were, but Cox is a pro who has been around forever. He survived Ted Turner for crying out loud, so I can’t feature a couple of personnel decisions by Wren causing such a rift.

If Cox isn’t back in 2010 it’s because he’s tired of managing, not because he can’t get along with the boss.

Good job rubbing salt on the Edes report with Cox. Here’s the part I believe – Cox was pissed about the handling of the Smoltz situation. And seeing how Smoltz has responded to being back in the National League probably hasn’t abated his anger any.
Cox gone in 2010? With all that pitching and Heyward waiting in the wings? I’m pretty sure he wants a crack at winning again.

I have no idea how Eric Wedge managed to hold his position for as long as he did. The Indians have been chronic underachievers with him at the helm for ages. That isn’t automatically the manager’s fault, but I haven’t seen any evidence that he’s a particularly skilled tactician, or a great clubhouse presence, or really that he has any exceptional skills as a manager at all. With a marginally competitive team in a soft division, who would you rather have? A conventional, middle of the road manager who does things basically by the book, or a guy who will take a risk here and there? Seems like a no-brainer to me.